D&D 5E [Forgotten Realms] The Wall of the Faithless

[Dire Bare]

Another point of contemplation is the Pact Primeval as presented in Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells. Here's an excerpt that explains it: https://lords-of-darkness.obsidianportal.com/wiki_pages/the-pact-primeval

Now, it can certainly be debated as to its level of canon, but it sets the precedent that gods across the multiverse agreed to the concept of cruel, inhumane punishment for transgressors. I don't think a moral dilemma with the "Goodness" of the Good deities in D&D ends with the Forgotten Realms.

The Pact Primeval, IMO, isn't the gods of good allowing or not caring the evil exists, but rather the gods getting tricked by Asmodeus into allowing evil. Granted, the gods come across A) not too bright, and B) unwilling to face the consequences of their choices, in this legend.

I also tend to look at this D&D legend as not so much inspired by mythology (despite the inclusion of hell, devils, and betrayal), but as a modern political/social allegory. We tend to look at our own Western society as "good", but we allow great evil to flourish because we are often unwilling to face or acknowledge (or take responsibility for) the consequences of our actions.

 

[sunshadow21]

I also tend to look at this D&D legend as not so much inspired by mythology (despite the inclusion of hell, devils, and betrayal), but as a modern political/social allegory. We tend to look at our own Western society as "good", but we allow great evil to flourish because we are often unwilling to face or acknowledge (or take responsibility for) the consequences of our actions.

Given how much of that modern social thought has changed even since D&D was first made, and will likely continue to change at the same rate for some time, that's a very a difficult position to start from if one expects to find solid moral ground. It also tends to hard to deal with if they come suddenly in the middle of a game simply because at that point the precise definitions of good and evil being used by each individual at the table are going to vary. While a view that allows good gods to tolerate something like the Wall is a bit harsher in some respects, gamewise, it's a lot easier for most groups to manage; being more clear cut, it's a lot easier to find resolution and move on without having to drag too much of real life into the game.

This is where the comments earlier about political correctness were not entirely off. It was a poor way of phrasing the concern, but the mindset behind it is not entirely inappropriate, because most of the disagreement in this thread comes down to mindset. While political correctness may not be the exact right phrase, the mindset behind those who generally try to be politically correct is not one that is going to be particularly compatible with a mindset that is perfectly comfortable accepting the existence of the Wall and instead chooses to focus on how that Wall is utilized. You are very much approaching this issue from the mindset that allowing any evil is unacceptable, but that is not a view held by most people throughout history. The eastern philosophies are all about balance, and even western society throughout history has accepted to a certain degree that evil exists and is necessary for good to exist. It is a very modern viewpoint that society is responsible for taking care of everybody equally regardless of what beliefs they hold and what choices they make. As a counterpoint to the quoted part of your post, it could be argued that not having the Wall would be not accepting consequences of the negative aspects caused by letting people focus overly much on themselves, and not enough on the greater society. In the end, it's a lot more complicated than simply not wanting to acknowledge responsibity for perceived evils or negative effects of our actions; it's more about what goals are considered worthy by whom, whether one is thinking immediate or long term, individual or society, and what goals and concerns are the priority. It's not that any particular mindset is more right or wrong than any other, just that there are mindsets out there that are not particularly compatible with certain other mindsets. That is very much on display in this thread. Those who believe that absolute Good could not possibly tolerate the existence of evil or even anything that hints of evil are not going to like the concept of the Wall. Those who are willing to take a more historical approach to the afterlife and a more balanced approach to the alignments in general will almost certainly be able to find something about the Wall that makes it useful and worthwhile.

The official canon, from I've seen, actually handles the Wall pretty well. It says that the Wall and Fugue Plane exist, and that judgment must be passed before a soul can move on, with one possible outcome being the Wall. As far as how often it's used, almost no detail is given. The good gods had issues when Myrkul was in control of it, but under the control of the neutral judge, who has his own good reasons not to abuse it, neither the existence of the Wall nor the judgment requirement seem to be that much of a problem, which seems reasonable to me. It's not something that I personally would have come up with, but it works. Just like medieval Christianity offered lots of ways to mitigate the great sufferings promised to those who did not believe (including even a few allowances for those that did not strictly profess a faith in Christ), the world of Forgotten Realms would almost certainly have practices and beliefs that would allow most people who wanted to avoid the Wall, and probably even the Fugue Plane as a whole, to do so without that much difficulty. Considering that many of those that would end up in the wall probably would see pretty much any fate other than one that they had 100% control over as a form of torture, I doubt that the good gods would really give that much thought to trying to save them.

 

[Shasarak]

I always thought that the concept "Bad things happen to Good people" was an appropriate place to start with in a Heroic Fantasy game.

Otherwise what do you expect your players to do instead of wandering around griefing your world?

 

[JohnLynch]

From the words of Ed Greenwood from yesterday's twitch game:

Remember you monotheists. Everybody in the Realms worships all the gods. Only paladins and clerics are dedicated to one deity.

Up to people if they want to require the Wall of the Faithless to be the fate of all who fail to worship a patron deity. However the original creator of the Realms clearly doesn't think anyone who fails to acknowledge a patron deity or be particularly devout to a specific deity will go to the Wall of the Faithless. As such I'm going to expand my definition of the Wall of the Faithless to be as follows:

Anyone who cannot accept that they have died and rejects the overtures of a deity to be welcomed into that deity's domain ends up in the Wall of the Faithless. In addition clerics, paladins and others who are consecrated as devoted servants of a deity (e.g. 4th ed Avengers, Pathfinder Inquisitors, AD&D 2nd ed Faiths and Avatars Monks) and yet fail to make more than a token effort to uphold and live by their deity's teachings will be punished and forced into the Wall of the Faithless unless they somehow evade this fate (such as by accepting an invitation from devils to go to the Nine Hells instead).

This keeps the canon of the Wall of the Faithless largely intact while also incorporating what Ed said. The purpose of the Wall in my games will also be as a barrier against the Far Realms.

 

[Sadras]

Offensive. And off the mark.

For you.

EDIT: May I ask why do you find it offensive? You may PM if you'd prefer.

 

[Hussar]

For you.

Off topic, but, offensive is ALWAYS for the person being offended. You don't get to pick and choose whether or not your words are offensive. That's up to other people. When someone tells you that your words have offended them, the proper response is to rephrase what you said to remove the offensive aspect. That's just good manners.

....

To be honest, I see a lot of echoes of Egyptian mythology in the idea of the Wall of the Faithless. Egyptian myth, as I understand it, demands that every soul be judged before going on to the afterlife, with those failing judgement going to the Egyptian version of Hell. AFAIC, that's what the Wall represents. Since D&D has turned demons and devils into, essentially, parasites, and evil dead souls that followed a god don't get eaten by demons but are instead sent to whatever evil deity is most appropriate, the Wall represents those who have tried to reject reality.

See, the thing is, you could believe that the gods aren't really gods. But, that would require a conscious, deliberate choice. Pwyll the Impious Potter doesn't go to the wall - he accepts that the gods are real and are a thing, he's just not terribly concerned about the afterlife. For Pwyll to get the Wall, he'd have to deliberately choose to believe that the gods aren't actually gods. He's not just impious, he's outright unfaithful. I'm not sure of the details, but, it sounds like the Dragonborn that were added to FR don't just dislike the gods (which would be fine and counts as a kind of belief) but outright reject the gods and all they are.

However, at the end of the day, they are wrong. Not believing the gods are gods is kinda like not believing rain is wet. These are, in fact, gods. There is no great bait and switch to keep priests in power. There's no con going on here. The gods are, in fact, gods.

It was mentioned about evil gods. Thing is, if you get rid of the wall, the evil gods still don't get to torture the evil souls. The evil souls go off to whatever Hell is appropriate and they become the playthings of demons or devils. The evil gods only get to claim the souls of those who have given themselves to that god. However, since that would happen very, very rarely, the current system actually benefits evil gods. Those that are evil, but, not Faithless, get sent to whatever evil god is appropriate after cooling their heels in the Fugue Plane for a while. Otherwise, those souls would never actually be sent to any god's realms.

It's very much in the interest of the evil gods not to futz with the status quo.

 

[sunshadow21]

It was mentioned about evil gods. Thing is, if you get rid of the wall, the evil gods still don't get to torture the evil souls. The evil souls go off to whatever Hell is appropriate and they become the playthings of demons or devils. The evil gods only get to claim the souls of those who have given themselves to that god. However, since that would happen very, very rarely, the current system actually benefits evil gods. Those that are evil, but, not Faithless, get sent to whatever evil god is appropriate after cooling their heels in the Fugue Plane for a while. Otherwise, those souls would never actually be sent to any god's realms.

It's very much in the interest of the evil gods not to futz with the status quo.

The fact that the evil souls wouldn't go to any god if too many souls get fed into the wall would be precisely why the evil gods would have as much reason to keep an eye on Kelemvor as the good gods would. At least 90% of the souls that would likely to even be considered for the Wall would be more evil than not, so the evil gods would be disproportionally effected by heavy use of that particular punishment. There would be a few good or neutral souls that got caught up in any excessive use, but most of the souls would be ones that would have otherwise ended up with the evil gods. Without the Wall and this system of judgment, those evil gods could compete with the demons and devils far more aggressively for those souls, possibly even capture them as they were traveling to the outer planes, cutting off their evil rivals entirely; with this system, they are forced to play nice with the non-evil gods and are unable to do much against their most direct competition, the devils and the demons, who are not on the whole required to play by the same rules. That has to chafe at least a little, and for those that are into torment and torture, it has to chafe that much more, since they have no part in the torture, and no real control over where the souls go. They may not hate the current system, but they certainly have reasons to not like every aspect of it, some to the point that if another seroius alternative was found, they would probably at least consider it.

They don't have any more reason to chafe under the system than the good gods, but they don't have any less reason to chafe, either. It's a system that if Kelemvor decided that he wanted to shaft the evil gods, he could so easily without some kind of oversight in place; it's a lot easier to condemn probably evil souls to torment followed by oblivion than it is to do the same for probably good souls who are likely to go gods that won't try to stab you in the back the first second they get a chance to. Yes, it will piss off the evil gods a bit, but without those souls to power their anger, it's a lot less dangerous than it might initially seem.

In the end, the only way the system works well is if the neutral judge accepts indirect input from the other gods before making final judgment. This allows the other gods to have indirect influence on the Fugue Plane, allowing the evil gods enough of a fighting chance against the devils and demons trying to claim their preferred souls while those souls await judgment. It also allows the celestials and good gods a bit of a chance to influence decisions a bit in their favor, ensuring that those souls that are right on the edge of neutral and evil aren't automatically pulled to evil. In short, it works because while no one gets everything they want, they get enough benefits while their foes are denied at the same time. If the judge was still Myrkul, the system would collapse immediately; the good gods would likely openly revolt, and the evil gods would start fighting each other as perceived slights, power struggles, and grievances would get pulled into the issue, and make everything much, much worse. With Kelemvor as a neutral judge, however, it's exactly what this pantheon needs to keep things from boiling over; all of the gods have to equally give up certain parts of the values they hold to be important, but get protection from the other gods who might try to use the quest for souls as an excuse to attack. Basically, even if no one loves the system, it's the best that this pantheon can come up with. In a pantheon with a little less bickering, there would probably be better choices, and it worlds that the gods aren't powered by mortal worship, it would be unnecessary, but given how well all of these gods get along and where they get their power, it actually is a very elegent solution, at least with Kelemvor as the judge. Change the judge, and the system would likely not hold together.

 

[MG.0]

However, at the end of the day, they are wrong. Not believing the gods are gods is kinda like not believing rain is wet. These are, in fact, gods. There is no great bait and switch to keep priests in power. There's no con going on here. The gods are, in fact, gods.

It depends on your point of view. Several of the FR "gods" were once mortals. That implies that godhood is just a state of being that can reached or defeated just like anything else. Characters may admit the gods are indeed powerful beings, yet reject the notion that thery are truly divine, or deserving of worship. This is an entirely valid point of view. Since challenging the gods themselves can fall within the power of D&D characters, it is not a totally unreasonable, or necessarily suicidal one either.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

However, at the end of the day, they are wrong. Not believing the gods are gods is kinda like not believing rain is wet. These are, in fact, gods. There is no great bait and switch to keep priests in power. There's no con going on here. The gods are, in fact, gods.

There is an established faction out in the planes called that Athar that would disagree with you vehemently.

So, this very claim is a great foundation for an in-character argument.

Also, the thoughts that some have expressed about this having anything to do with atheism vs. theism are misplaced. Player moral objection to the Wall of the Faithless isn't limited by belief systems.

 

[Hussar]

It depends on your point of view. Several of the FR "gods" were once mortals. That implies that godhood is just a state of being that can reached or defeated just like anything else. Characters may admit the gods are indeed powerful beings, yet reject the notion that thery are truly divine, or deserving of worship. This is an entirely valid point of view. Since challenging the gods themselves can fall within the power of D&D characters, it is not a totally unreasonable, or necessarily suicidal one either.

That the gods may have once been mortal is largely irrelevant to whether or not something is a god. The fact that gods aren't all powerful is also irrelevant. Gods don't have to be omnipotent in order to be gods. In fact, other that Ao, none of the FR gods are actually omnipotent - and this is perfectly in keeping with lots of pantheistic belief systems. Also, you don't have to worship the gods. That's stated right there in the books that it's not simply enough to not worship, but, rather, you have to go out of your way to deny the gods and actively betray the gods in order to get stuffed in the wall.

As I said, Pwyll the Impious Potter doesn't get sent to the Wall. He just cools his heels for a while in the Fugue Plane until he is judged. For Pwyll to actually get sent to the wall, he has to do something deliberately to deny that the gods are actually gods. And, again, in FR, he would be wrong. Pwyll can believe whatever he wants to believe, but, that doesn't change the fact that Selune is a god.

So, no, it isn't a valid point of view. It's like trying to believe that dragons aren't really dragons. Of course they're dragons. That's what they are. Belief doesn't enter into the equation. You might not worship them, but, deny that they are gods at all is denying reality. They really are gods. There's no bait and switch here. There's no con. Torm is a god. Full stop. There is no real debate in this setting. There is a concrete, distinct entity that you can empirically point to and say, "Yup, that's a god". He/She/It is a god because it can do X, Y and Z and because He/She/It has worshippers. ANYTHING with enough worshippers in FR can become a god.

There is an established faction out in the planes called that Athar that would disagree with you vehemently.

So, this very claim is a great foundation for an in-character argument.

Also, the thoughts that some have expressed about this having anything to do with atheism vs. theism are misplaced. Player moral objection to the Wall of the Faithless isn't limited by belief systems.

And, this, right here, is why I have such an issue with Planescape. PS can make whatever claims it wants to make. That's fine and dandy. But, keep it in PS please. That faction does not exist in FR. PS tries to homogenise every setting by enforcing a single cosmology and contradicting the established canon of individual settings. Yes, I agree that FR uses the Great Wheel. But, the Great Wheel does not have to include PS elements. It's simply a model for how the planes work. When elves travel to another plane (I'm blanking on the name) through the portal in their lands, they come out into the Forgotten Realms version of the Great Wheel. I hate the idea that as soon as I step off the Prime, I can walk down the street and find Torm's afterlife abutting next to Heironeous' and all of them surrounded by the rest of the D&D cosmologies all jammed together.

Like I said before, if you remove the Fugue plane from FR, souls don't head off to alignment planes, they can't. There's no way for a soul to travel to the outer planes in FR except through the Fugue plane. All that other stuff from other settings doesn't apply. When you Gate an Angel in FR, you don't Gate an angel of Heironeous. You Gate an Angel of some LG FR God. Otherwise, what's the point of having distinct cosmologies. Might as well simply have one cosmology to rule them all and not bother having any distinctness at all.